Hartford May Still Be In Picture If Massachusetts Stadium Deal Falters

BOSTON — The Patriots play their first exhibition game Sunday, but that might be tame compared to the game that is being played out in the Massachusetts legislature.

Basically, the team was sacked twice in one day. The legislature first rejected a stadium plan favored by the team, and then the House passed a bill the Patriots had publicly rejected Monday.

So, with the Massachusetts legislative session drawing to a close Friday, there appears to be no agreement with the state that Patriots owner Robert Kraft can live with, which means Hartford is still very much in the picture.

How much? No one in Connecticut is saying too much for now. Most of the noise was in our neighboring state.

During 45 minutes of sometimes fiery speeches on the House floor, Republicans and Democrats slammed the Patriots and Kraft for the multimillion-dollar salaries paid to the players and the profits that go to the owners. The House then voted 133-18 for the plan the team had already rejected.

Back in Connecticut, Gov. John G. Rowland was cautious in his comments -- as he has been in recent weeks -- because he says he does not want to raise expectations about the team coming to Hartford.

``Well, if nothing happens there [in Massachusetts], then if they have an interest in going somewhere else, we'd be glad to talk to them,'' Rowland said. ``There are no particular plans at this point in time, but I'd be more than happy to look into it.''

But, he added: ``Make no mistake, a team like the Patriots would light this town on fire. There's no question in my mind about that.''

Rowland has been quietly in discussions with Kraft -- and, on at least one occasion, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue -- about the possibility of a move to Hartford as part of the proposed $1 billion Adriaen's Landing development.

Preliminary information has been exchanged about what the Patriots would want, and what Hartford and the state could provide, sources say. But one source close to the negotiations said that even if the Patriots decide to leave Massachusetts, it is doubtful any deal involving state finances would be proposed for public approval here until after the Nov. 3 gubernatorial and legislative elections.

Campaign-year politics could make it much more difficult to approve such a proposal. Legislative candidates from outside the Hartford area, for example, might feel compelled to adopt hard-line positions against it. And Rowland clearly does not want to risk his lead for re-election by taking a potentially unpopular position, such as publicly advocating too much in public spending to attract the team, sources said.

``It's a big issue and there's so many facets to it, ranging from fan base to the needs of the Patriots in terms of a stadium and what goes with that -- you know, everything from TV rights to where would the practice field be,'' Rowland said. ``So there's probably about 15 different elements of the whole plan.''

TV was on the minds of the legislators Tuesday. Since the national television contract with the National Football League pays the Patriots $73 million per year, legislators said, the taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a profitable team.

Massachusetts House Republican leader David M. Peters said constituents in one of the towns he represents earn a median annual salary of only $23,000 per year.

``While the owners of the game may talk about moving out of state, they may be crying wolf,'' said Peters, who represents Charlton, in central Massachusetts. ``But more importantly, they may be threatening this institution, this body, or the speaker of the House. Maybe they are trying to garnish public opinion and public support. I want to remind the owners and players that the people out my way don't make millions of dollars. They don't even know how many zeroes there are in a billion dollars.''

The key person who blocked the Senate plan was House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a Democrat who holds enormous power in a traditionally Democratic state. Many people at the Massachusetts Statehouse say Finneran has become more powerful than the governor, and his influence on the Patriots issue does not contradict that notion.

``I think the speaker made it very clear that it's his way or no way, and that's unfortunate,'' said acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican. ``I think it's unfortunate that the House is digging its heels in. You've got the Senate in agreement. You've got the governor in agreement. The House is the odd man out, so to speak.''

Cellucci refused to predict the chances that Connecticut now has of luring the team.

``I don't know,'' Cellucci said outside his office. ``I'm going to fight to get a bill that will keep them here.''

Cellucci and other top officials did not even want to mention the word `Connecticut' during interviews.